Light Bulb Ban

Don't tread on my light bulbs!

From The Foundry:

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the BULB Act this week, which was introduced by Representatives Joe Barton (R–TX), Michael Burgess (R–TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN). The legislation would repeal Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007—the phase-out of the incandescent bulb as we know it. The light bulb ban has become a symbolic representation of the federal government’s intrusion into the American individual’s freedom.

The insinuation behind energy efficiency standards—not just for light bulbs, but for vehicles, appliances, and buildings—is that consumers don’t know what’s best for them. This is clear in what critics are saying about the repeal of the light bulb ban.

Former Senator John Warner (R–VA) said, “We’ll be dropping backwards in America’s need to become more energy-efficient.” Yet when you take a look at America’s energy efficiency track record, it’s not too shabby—and it’s a result of innovation and cost reduction, not government mandates and regulations. Overall, energy consumption per real dollar of gross domestic product has dropped dramatically in the past 60 years, because we’ve innovated and become drastically more efficient in the process.

Interestingly, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said of the legislation, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

Then why stop with light bulbs? Store-brand cola is much cheaper than Coke or Pepsi. The same is true for cereal, vegetables, and most other products found at a grocery store. Why not mandate that consumers buy the cheaper of the two to save money? Would the same politicians argue that consumers are wasting their money when they buy Coke instead of generic cola?

The difference between these examples and the energy efficiency standard is that Congress is mandating higher sticker prices on lighting with the assumption that it will save consumers money (through cheaper electricity bills) in the long run. But consumers are not stupid. If the more expensive bulbs were truly better in the long run, people would buy them.

...People consider several variables—not just the sticker price— when buying a product.

...Consumers prefer incandescent bulbs for a number of reasons. Many prefer the soft yellow lighting of incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of fluorescents. Residents in houses with wells and septic systems use the heat from incandescent bulbs to keep the water above freezing. Others prefer not to deal with the lengthy cleanup process that comes with broken CFLs, because they contain mercury. There are plenty of reasons consumers buy incandescents, and there’s no good reason for the government to restrict that choice.

Read "How Many Hazmat Suits Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?"

Cigarette Warning Labels: Graphic

The U.S. government is demanding that graphic warning labels it has designed be placed on both the top half of the front and back of packs of cigarettes. In addition, the labels must occupy 20 percent of the space on advertising.

Here are some of the examples the FDA displayed last year:





View the final label designs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Cigarette makers must add large, graphic warning labels depicting diseased lungs, a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his neck and other images to packaging and advertising in the U.S. by October 2012, government officials said Tuesday.

The nine graphic images—accompanying warning labels with messages such as "Smoking can kill you" and "Cigarettes cause cancer"—are the biggest change to warning labels in more than 25 years. Such warnings were required by a 2009 law that gave the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products.

The supersize labels are the highest-profile part of an intensified war on tobacco by the federal government, which ranks it as the leading cause of preventable and premature death in the U.S., linked to an estimated 443,000 deaths a year. The adult smoking rate of 20.6% in 2009 has remained largely unchanged since 2004, and about 20% of high school students also smoke.

The new color labels must occupy the top half of the front and back of a cigarette pack, and 20% of an ad's space. Other images include a baby near a cloud of smoke, a dead body, and a man wearing a black t-shirt with "I Quit" written across the chest. All labels include the number of a national quit line. Current warning labels, which were put on cigarette packs in the 1980s, are contained in a small box with black and white text warning about the dangers of smoking.

...Reynolds American Inc., Lorillard Inc., Commonwealth Brands Inc. and other tobacco companies sued the FDA in 2009, arguing that the graphic-labeling rule and other marketing provisions in the new federal tobacco law violate their constitutional rights to free speech. Last year, a judge mostly ruled in the government's favor—including on the graphic-labeling rule—but the mixed verdict prompted appeals from both sides.

...How effective the labels are at discouraging smoking remains to be seen. More than 25% of smokers in 13 of 14 countries in a recent survey reported that large, graphic warning labels prompted them to think about quitting, according to results published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a 2001 survey sponsored by the Canadian Cancer Society, 44% of smokers said warning labels increased their motivation to quit. The Institute of Medicine, a U.S. federal advisory body, concluded in a 2007 report that graphic warnings would convey a better understanding of the health risks of smoking and would reduce U.S. consumption.

Who doesn't understand the health risks of smoking?

There is no lack of anti-smoking education. If one is too stupid to know the dangers, I don't know how that person is capable of learning to smoke.

I do think warning labels are appropriate on potentially dangerous products, but the government's new designs are a no-holds-barred assault on the tobacco industry.

Is this the beginning of more government intrusion in private industry? Will the FDA expand its power and design graphic warnings for other potentially harmful products, like FOOD?

Any food consumed in quantities that are extreme can cause serious health consequences.

Consuming too much clear, clean WATER can kill.

Virtually every product has risks. The need for graphic warnings are endless.

Should grills be required to have images similar to the 36 cigarette labels since one consumes carcinogens when eating grilled food?

Should makers of toothpicks be required to have a label that includes graphic pictures of the wooden spikes sticking out of people's eyes?

Should packages of candles for birthday cakes include graphic images of burn victims? HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Make a wish!

Should women's high heel shoes come in boxes with pictures of women with broken bones and deformed feet?

Should children's bikes be required to have stickers depicting dead children, killed in accidents?

Should entrances to playgrounds in parks have large graphic warning signs that show children injured while playing, some paralyzed, some dead?

Should EVERY bottle of wine and spirits have graphic pictures of diseased livers and dying people? Celebrate!

Should EVERY car have images of bloodied bodies on the dashboard and the bumpers?

If the government is to be consistent, yes. If the government's role is to determine the design of labels of private industries' products, then yes.

While I support warning labels and an informed public, I think it's wrong for the government to be in the business of controlling the design of product packages.

What's especially troubling about the cigarette campaign is that it singles out one industry, at least for now.

If the government is truly concerned about public health, then the government must be consistent.

Without question, it must demand that abortion clinics plaster images of dismembered fetuses and the mutilated, murdered bodies of nearly full-term babies on its doors and walls.
______________________

Read Dr. Regina M. Benjamin's take on the issue: New Graphic Warnings Labels: A Step In The Right Direction

As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reminded us, "President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help. These labels will encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future."

It's for the children.

ObamaCare Waivers List 2011

The ObamaCare Waivers List is truly an embarrassment.

If ObamaCare is such a great system why are so many waivers being sought and granted?

The list of waivers has been getting longer and longer.

Yesterday, the Daily Caller shed more light on the latest waivers. It's not pretty.

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

...The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014.

Café Mason, a diner near San Francisco’s Union Square, got a waiver too. When The Daily Caller asked the manager about the waiver and how the president’s new sweeping federal health care law was affecting his restaurant, he hung up the phone. The Franciscan Crab restaurant on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco got a waiver. Its menu features entrees ranging from about $15 to $60. The Franciscan’s general manager didn’t return TheDC’s requests for comment.

Four-star hotel Campton Place got one too, as did Hotel Nikko San Francisco, which describes itself as “four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city.” Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the “best day spa in San Francisco,” received an Obamacare waiver as well.

Before hanging up on TheDC, Tru Spa’s owner said new government health care regulations, both the federal-level Obamacare and new local laws in Northern California, have “devastated” the business. “It’s been bad for us,” he said, without divulging his name, referring to the new health care restrictions.

But, the spa owner wouldn’t talk about it or the reason his company sought a waiver. He hung up after saying, “I’ve got clients on the other line, good-bye.”

ObamaCare is bad for business. That's the reality.

In an effort to appease, the Obama administration is granting favors, giving the "chosen" a break from the government regulations.

The fact that Nancy Pelosi's district has received nearly 20 percent of the new waivers is really stunning. One congressional district, Pelosi's, gets 20 percent of the newest waivers?!?

That looks really bad.

Pelosi needs to address this matter. "No comment" isn't going to fly.
__________________

Read Michelle Malkin, "Waive Me."

Chris Wallace and Tom Donilon

Chris Wallace made a fool out of National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on FOX News Sunday.

From Mediaite:

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon a rather interesting question related to the capture and shooting death of terrorist leader Osama din Laden: Why is it legal and “proper” to shoot an unarmed man in the face, while enhanced interrogation methods, such as waterboarding, are deemed improper? You might recall, in fact, that waterboarding was banned by President Barack Obama back in January of 2009.

Donilon initially responded by driving home the danger posed by bin Laden, and the power he yielded within Al Qaeda, prompting Wallace to interrupt him and clarify that he wasn’t looking for justification as to why bin Laden was shot down by U.S. troops but, rather, a reason why doing so is permissible when using often dangerous, but not necessarily lethal, methods of interrogation in order to bring such a dangerous man to justice are not.

Donilon said such methods are not only unnecessary, but are also consistent with America’s values. Wallace didn’t miss a beat, immediately asking whether shooting an armed man in the face is consistent with those same values. Well, Donilion pointed out, we are at war.

Video.



The Leftists can't provide an adequate answer to Wallace's question because there isn't one.

They can't make a distinction that doesn't exist.

Bin Laden Raid: Changing Narrative

The White House has made a complete mess of informing the public about the death of Osama bin Laden and the raid on his compound.

The details have changed dramatically since Obama made the announcement late Sunday that bin Laden was killed.

The mission was a success.

However, the White House has failed miserably in relaying the facts about the mission effectively. It's been a total failure.



What really happened? What are we to believe?

I don't think we've arrived at the final version of events yet.

We'll have to wait for Oliver Stone to write the screenplay.

White House Photo, Not Watching Bin Laden

Ladies and gentlemen, what you thought was a photo of Obama and his national security team watching as the mission to kill Osama bin Laden played out was not.

The American public was led to believe that we saw a snapshot of a specific historic moment.

We didn't. We were misled.



From the Telegraph:

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: "Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

"We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound."

Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president.

Well, well.

I was under the impression I was looking at Obama and Hillary and Biden watching as the raid took place.

This photo told the story - the tension, the anxiety - of watching the mission to kill bin Laden.

When that photo was being plastered everywhere, the public was being misled.

Obama and company weren't doing what we were told they were doing.

So much of the information about bin Laden's death we've received since Sunday night has been wrong.

I'm amazed at the level of confusion and the extent of the misinformation coming from the Obama administration.

What is the truth?

Obama has given the public so much to doubt. It's been such a mess. So many different stories, so many retractions and clarifications.

Even the reality of this photo from the White House Situation Room was screwed up.

I just want the truth.

I wonder which "facts" about the bin Laden raid will change today.
________________

UPDATE: Clinton: allergy, not anguish in my bin Laden photo

Reuters continues to report (May 5, 2011) that the photo is of senior officials watching the raid LIVE.

I guess, as Bill Clinton, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

An allergy and not anguish may explain why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had her hand to her mouth while watching the commando operation to kill Osama bin Laden, she said on Thursday.

A photo of Clinton, President Barack Obama and other senior officials watching the operation live from the White House situation room has become one of the most striking images of the raid that killed the al Qaeda leader.

The photo shows Clinton with her hand to her mouth in what looks like a gesture of anxiety over the outcome of the operation.

"Those were 38 of the most intense minutes. I have no idea what any of us were looking at that particular millisecond when the picture was taken," she said on Thursday when asked about the photo during a visit to Rome.

"I am somewhat sheepishly concerned that it was my preventing one of my early spring allergic coughs. So it may have no great meaning whatsoever," Clinton added.

I commend Hillary for her honesty.

So much has been said about the look on her face, expressing the tension of the moment. Turns out it might just be an attempt to stifle a cough.

Holder and Investigation of CIA Interrogators

As Obama and his administration heap praise upon themselves for killing Osama bin Laden, Attorney General Eric Holder is busy with his criminal investigation of CIA interrogators.

Yeah, that's still going on.

Daniel Henninger, the Wall Street Journal writes:

As the whole of America takes a bin Laden victory lap, let us pause to remember some of this celebrated event's most forgotten men: the Central Intelligence Agency officers who sit under the cloud of a criminal investigation begun in 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder into their interrogations of captured terrorists.

That's right, the Americans whose interrogation of al Qaeda operatives may have put in motion the death of this mass murderer may themselves face prosecution by the country they were trying to protect.

It is time for the Holder CIA investigation to end. The death of bin Laden 10 years after 9/11 makes the Holder investigation of the CIA interrogators politically, emotionally and morally moot.

But it lives.

What a bizarre disconnect!

Unfortunately, this sort of weirdness is business as usual for the Obama administration.

In August 2009, Attorney General Holder announced that he was extending the mandate of Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham into the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" of terrorist detainees. Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey had appointed Mr. Durham in 2008 as a special prosecutor to look into the CIA's destruction of videotapes made during interrogations of two al Qaeda operatives. That investigation ended without charges last November.

Mr. Holder decided to push the Durham investigation into a second phase. "I have concluded," he said "that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations." Mr. Holder wasn't free-lancing; both he and Barack Obama had called waterboarding "torture."

Obama and Holder continue forward with looking at our CIA interrogators as criminals.

Rather than considering them to have played an important role in protecting the American people, Obama and Holder and the Leftist gang persist in treating them like enemies.

This week the Associated Press reported that the name of bin Laden's courier may have come from CIA interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, who received "harsh" interrogation at CIA prisons in Poland and Romania. On Tuesday, Mr. Holder said the information came from a "mosaic of sources."

Incidentally, there will be no attempt here to establish whether CIA interrogations did or did not lead to the bin Laden courier, who led our commandos to a bedroom in Abbottabad. Just as there will be no attempt here to resolve the fastidious debate unfolding over whether the Navy Seals' shooting of an unarmed Osama bin Laden was "legal." We'll leave that to the endless grinding wheels of the law journals.

Awkward!

The CIA interrogators could be national heroes.

Obviously, the Obama administration doesn't want to know. Most specifically, they don't want us to know.

If Mr. Holder has evidence of an egregious crime, he should step forward and announce it. If not, he should use this moment to put an end to the Durham investigation. Mr. Durham is not an independent counsel, whose hallowed status makes attorneys general loath to interfere. He is a special prosecutor, appointed by the attorney general and under his authority.

On June 18 last year, Mr. Holder said in a Washington speech that Mr. Durham was "close to the end of the time that he needs and will be making recommendations to me." But nothing has happened. Asked this week about the status of this investigation, a Justice Department spokesman for Mr. Durham, whose office is in Connecticut, said the project is "still ongoing."

I agree.

If Holder has evidence of an egregious crime, tell us now. If not, stop this investigation.

It's wrong for Obama to commend the CIA piece of the "mosaic" in the nearly 10-year mission to get bin Laden while Holder is trying to pin interrogators with crimes.

Henninger concludes:

After 9/11, when the fraying started, George W. Bush passed through a seven-year political minefield of media leaks and lawsuits over the Patriot Act, surveillance, renditions, Guantanamo and CIA interrogations. Now bin Laden is dead, and Barack Obama's got the credit. We're all fine with that, just as we're fine with people chanting "USA" over the dead terrorist who tried to kill us. Now how about letting those CIA interrogators come in from the cold and join the celebration?

The Democrats, Leftists including Obama, before and after he became president, put President Bush and Vice President Cheney and the administration through hell as they waged war against bin Laden.

Thank God they had the character and the toughness to not be swayed by polls. Thank God they stood up to the attacks by the Dems and did what was necessary to protect us.

With bin Laden dead, and Leon Panetta admitting valuable intelligence was gained via the CIA, it's time to end the criminal investigation of the CIA interrogators.

Is it possible for Obama to put politics and his visions of reelection aside, just for a moment?

We'll see.

Leon Panetta: Waterboarding, Bin Laden

Donald Rumsfeld weighed in on the role waterboarding played in getting to Osama bin Laden.

Video, from FOX News.



This presents a bit of a problem for Obama and the Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media.

They have to reconcile the fact that information gained through interrogation techniques they fought to disallow helped to get bin Laden.

It's very inconvenient for them to admit that reality.

When the truth doesn't fit their agenda, they're forced to ignore it. They don't seem to mind being dishonest.

On Tuesday, NBC's Brian Williams interviewed CIA director Leon Panetta.

Video.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript

BRIAN WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after bin Laden?

LEON PANETTA: You know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here. We had a, we had a multiple source, uh, a multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation. Clearly, some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees, but we also had information from other sources as well. So it's, it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.

WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?

PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether, whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.

WILLIAMS: So, finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques, which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years, that includes waterboarding.

PANETTA: That's correct.

It took a while for Panetta to admit it, he obviously tried not to, but he did eventually acknowledge that intelligence gained from detainees who were waterboarded was a factor in the success of the mission to kill bin Laden.

That complicates things for Obama and the Leftists.

What is not an open question is the fact that information obtained via enhanced interrogation techniques played a part in accomplishing the mission.

It is what it is.

Waterboarding worked.

Matthew Boyle, The Daily Caller, writes that the New York Times completely ignores Panetta's admission in a story on the value of harsh interrogation methods.

In a story about the resurrection of the harsh interrogation techniques debate slated to run on The New York Times’ front page Wednesday morning, reporters Scott Shane and Charlie Savage completely ignore CIA director Leon Panetta’s Tuesday evening confirmation that waterboarding played a role in procuring the intelligence that led U.S. forces to terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

“As intelligence officials disclosed the trail of evidence that led to the compound in Pakistan where Bin Laden was hiding, a chorus of Bush administration officials claimed vindication for their policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like waterboarding,” Shane and Savage write in their story, accusing Republicans of igniting a debate they thought was long over.

Shane and Savage looked the other way, though, when it came to Panetta’s confirmation that waterboarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on detainees. “We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,” Panetta told NBC News anchor Brian Williams.

The New York Times duo also suggested that House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, inflamed the debate by saying he thought the intelligence came from waterboarding. “The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, told Fox News that the success of the hunt for Bin Laden was due to waterboarding,” Shane and Savage wrote.

It turns out King was right.

We don't need spin.

We need facts.

We need the truth.

Intelligence from interrogation methods denounced by Obama and company were part of the mission's success.

Osama Code Name: Geronimo

UPDATE, May 5, 2011: Senate Indian panel to discuss racial concerns
________________

Are Native Americans offended that Osama bin Laden's code name was "Geronimo"?

I'm sure union members would be upset if bin Laden's code name was "Trumka."
________________

I'm hearing Leftists insist that the mission was called "Geronimo," NOT Osama bin Laden.

That contradicts previous and current reports.

From CBS News Pentagon Correspondent, David Martin:

Target bin Laden: CBS delves into mission to get 'Geronimo'

As the information from the operation flowed into the Situation Room on Sunday afternoon, the president exclaimed, "We got him," based on what he was hearing and seeing. Bin Laden died on the scene, shot fatally in the chest and head.

One official heard a commander on scene say, "Geronimo E-KIA." Geronimo was the code name for Bin Laden; E-KIA is "enemy killed in action."

Clearly, "Geronimo E-KIA" refers to bin Laden.

I think it's odd that the Obama administration has made sure to let the world know that bin Laden's body was treated with care and given a respectful burial.

The corpse was taken to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, officials told ABC News. The ceremony, done according to Islamic law, began about 1:10 a.m. today EST and lasted about 45 minutes, according to officials.

Traditional washing of the body was followed by wrapping in white sheets. A military officer read religious remarks that were translated by a native Arabic speaker, then bin Laden was eased into the sea.

Nice that in death they treat this evil, evil man, killer of thousands of innocents, with such respect but don't give a thought to giving him a code name that could offend Native Americans.

Good grief, it's considered offensive to use Native American names for school teams in Wisconsin. Even positive images are deemed inappropriate.

But call the epitome of evil, Osama bin Laden, "Geronimo."

No problem.

Osama bin Laden = Geronimo

Why isn't that politically incorrect?

Obama has some explaining to do.

Maybe he can hold a Beer Summit with some Native American leaders.

White House Changes Bin Laden Death Details

Apparently, Obama and his administration should have delayed the Osama bin Laden death information that they gave to the public even longer than they did.

The White House had a number of "facts" wrong.

From Politico:

The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces.

Officials also retreated from claims that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed in the raid and that bin Laden was using her as a human shield before she was shot by U.S. forces.

At a televised White House briefing Monday afternoon, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan said bin Laden joined in the fight that several residents of the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound put up against the Navy SEALs during the 40-minute operation.

“He [bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know,” Brennan said.

At a Pentagon briefing earlier in the day, a senior defense official said bin Laden used a woman as a human shield so he could fire shots. “He was firing behind her,” the official said.

In another background briefing early Monday morning, a senior administration official also said bin Laden put up a fight. “He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight,” the official said.

However, during a background, off-camera briefing for television reporters later Monday, a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed, apparently by the U.S. raid team.

Another White House official familiar with the TV briefing confirmed the change to POLITICO, adding, “I’m not aware of him having a weapon.”

“The bottom line is the team that entered that room was met with resistance and took appropriate action,” said a third American official.

The White House on Monday night declined to elaborate on the nature of the resistance bin Laden allegedly put up. However, an official confirmed that the Al Qaeda founder was shot twice, once in the head and once in the chest.

The misinformation, if it is misinformation, creates uncertainty.

I don't know what to believe.

There seems to be an effort to reconstruct the "facts."

Bin Laden Death Photo

UPDATE, May 4, 2011: WH won't release bin Laden death photo

President Barack Obama has decided not to release death photos of terrorist Osama bin Laden, he said in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," amid concerns that the gruesome image could prove inflammatory.

Obama's decision was reported on the CBS News Web site Wednesday after the president sat for an interview with the news magazine program.

Releasing graphic images of bin Laden's corpse after his shooting in a U.S. raid on his compound could have dispelled doubts that bin Laden is indeed dead. The worry, though, was that it would feed anti-U.S. sentiment.

More, from CBS News:

In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday's "60 Minutes," President Obama says he won't release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death.

...Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome post-mortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas. Rogers told CBS News he has seen a post-mortem photo.

"The risks of release outweigh the benefits," he said. "Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East."

"Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet," he continued. "Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated."

What's Obama talking about?

We saw images of our troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. We don't have to imagine what it would be like.

I want to see a photo of bin Laden dead.

Something to go with these images:





Too gruesome?

Too inflammatory?

This from Obama, the man who undermined George W. Bush and his administration at every turn, showing no concern for how it would impact the American troops on the battlefield.

Give me a break!

Hopefully, Obama has the facts wrong about the photo, too. Hopefully, the White House will realize it's a mistake to fail to release a death photo of bin Laden.

Maybe this whole thing is just a dance to make it appear that Obama was forced to release a photo, even though he really didn't want to do it.

The allegedly gutsy Obama should show some guts.
_______________

I believe Osama bin Laden is dead.

I don't think Obama cooked up an elaborate scheme to jump-start his stalled presidency.

I don't think there's any attempt to fake bin Laden's death. There's no conspiracy, but I'm unsure about some aspects of how everything was handled.

There are some questioning the speedy burial at sea of bin Laden's remains according to Islamic law, like Sen. Lindsey Graham.



I think it's strange that the Obama administration is stressing that bin Laden was buried in a respectful manner and in accordance with Islamic law. This evil man who slaughtered thousands deserves no respect. Why try to avoid offending Muslims on the burial issue?

Obama said Sunday night:

Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Obama is saying bin Laden was the enemy of Muslims. Shouldn't Muslims around the world be cheering his demise and thanking the U.S. rather than being ready to criticize the U.S. for dissing him?

The U.S. hunted him down and killed him. This message that bin Laden had a respectful burial is weird.

ABC News reports:

The corpse was taken to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, officials told ABC News. The ceremony, done according to Islamic law, began about 1:10 a.m. today EST and lasted about 45 minutes, according to officials.

Traditional washing of the body was followed by wrapping in white sheets. A military officer read religious remarks that were translated by a native Arabic speaker, then bin Laden was eased into the sea.

Officials said no other alternatives were available.

"We are ensuring that it is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition," an administration official said. "This is something that we take very seriously. And so therefore this is being handled in an appropriate manner."

What? That's bizarre.

And why slip his corpse into the Arabian Sea so quickly, within 24 hours of killing him, given the circumstances?

That seems a bit hurried and odd to me, but I can accept it. As lame as it is to abide by Islamic rules for the enemy of Muslims, I do accept the government's story.

However, what I need is a photo. I need to see a photo of bin Laden dead.

It has nothing to do with doubts and conspiracies. I just need to see a photo of bin Laden dead.

From ABC News:

As elated crowds celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden after Navy SEALs killed the al-Qaida chief in a weekend raid in Pakistan some are asking, "Where's the proof?"

I wish I felt "elated," but I don't.

I'm glad our great, skilled, brave military brought the evil and cowardly bin Laden to justice. They're heroes.

We can be proud as one nation, but the war isn't over. This is a tremendous victory, but bin Laden's legacy concerns me.

Starting with the morning of September 11, 2001, and continuing today, we've seen many heroes, brave men and women putting themselves at risk to protect us. Thousands of Americans have died in the War on Terror, here at home and on the battlefield.

Bin Laden's dead but there is no peace.

Ending this one life doesn't begin to erase the pain and suffering of the thousands and thousands of bin Laden's victims.

Celebration doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't fit.

Photos depicting a bloodied and bruised face appearing to be that of bin Laden began appearing on Twitter and Facebook last night soon after news of his death spread across the Internet. According to Reuters, an archive photo of bin Laden at a news conference proves that image was a fake. Now people are asking to see the evidence proving bin Laden is dead.

"We have released a tremendous amount of information to date," Obama's top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said. "At the same time we don't want to do anything that is going to compromise our ability to be as successful the next time one of these guys needs to be taken off the battlefield."

As for the releasing of death photographs, Brennan said that is "something to be determined." But he added they're going to do everything they can to prevent denials of bin Laden's death.

From Pakistan to the U.S. people expressed their skepticism about the death of the man who is perhaps the most infamous terrorist ever known.

"I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes. Like Sadam I wouldn't have believed it until I saw his body," tweeted MaryGlazerOut.

Eric Solochier, 22, a senior at Penn State University said his dad was one of the firefighters who helped clean up New York City the day following 9/11, so bin Laden's death would be especially meaningful to him -- he wants to believe it, but he's not convinced.

"There has to be some sort of visual or DNA test. You can obviously photoshop anything you want," said Solochier. "They should submit video. It would be somewhat gruesome but it's something we should be able to see. "

I, too, want to see a photo.

It's not that I don't trust the government, but I need an image. Even though I know a photo could be doctored, I still think the Obama administration should let the world see bin Laden dead.

Right now, the images in my mind are the planes flying into the towers, the Pentagon in flames, and the Pennsylvania field smoldering. I see the people jumping from the World Trade Center - such horrific images. And then there are the funerals, all those images from the funerals.

The bin Laden chapter of the War on Terror won't be closed for me until I see him dead.

A photo is necessary.

I'll never get the images of 9/11 out of my head. I want the dead bin Laden to be there, too.
______________

UPDATE: The death photos

A Senior US Official tells CNN 10 hard drives, 5 computers and more than 100 storage devices which includes discs, DVDs and thumb drives were taken from the compound.

The senior us official also says the White House received 3 sets of photos yesterday. The photos included:

1. Photos of OBLs body at a hanger after he was brought back to Afghanistan. This is the most recognizable with a clear picture of his face. The picture is gruesome because he has a massive open head wound across both eyes. It’s very bloody and gory.

2. Photos from the burial at sea on the USS Carl Vinson. Photos of OBL before the shroud was put on and then wrapped in the shroud.

3. There are photos of the raid itself that include photos of the two dead brothers, one of OBLs dead son (adult adolescent, maybe approx 18 yrs old) and some of the inside scene of the compound.

The official says the challenge is that the picture that includes the most recognizable image of OBLs face – from the hangar in Afghanistan – is so gruesome and mangled its not appropriate for say the front page of the newspaper. On the other hand, this is the one that is most identifiable as him.

I really don't like to see gruesome photos of human beings that have been mangled, even monsters like bin Laden. But this is reality. It's history.

We have the right to see the images. One should have the choice to view them or not.

White House Gives Kids Eggs and Debt

Here's how the "Headlines" segment began on Monday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno:

White House Gives Eggs to Children, Huge Debt to Grandchildren

That's more sad than funny.

Hope and change?

A better slogan for Obama would be "Screwing America's Future Generations."